Hoser asked-
What I can't figure out from the account is was the sex between Dinah and Shechem consensual or was it rape?
That's an anachronistic question reflecting a 21st century mindset, applying modern thinking to a setting 4,000 yrs ago.
The idea of giving consent doesn't even apply to the Dinah story, since the one who had to give consent was her FATHER: daughters were considered the PROPERTY of the partriarch (it was a matter of the father's honor, and an insult to him if someone defiled one of the women in the family without consent). However, Dinah seemingly gave consent to sex, and although it's not stated what HER feelings were (as if it mattered: it didn't), the account states the young man loved her and wanted to marry her and asked his father, the King of the Hivites to follow the customs to buy her for him. Marriage was seen as an alliance amongst families, and the King extended an offer of alliance between the two clans.
The Bible says the sons of Jacob dealt deceitfully with Shechem and his father, and then killed the inhabitants after tricking them into circumcising themselves (deceipt is a lovely trait, esp when it's seen in the same individual, Levi, who headed up the priestly class (the Levites) and who later led a murderous pogrom against the 3,000 Israelites who worshipped the Golden Calf which was made by Aaron). Oh, they killed Shechem and took Dinah back (the foolish girl likely thought she was starting a new life for herself with husband!), after taking the town's wealth, livestock, widows and children as their own slaves!
Remember, the account likely served the function of explaining WHY the people needed to resist intermarriage with others (Gentiles); hence it served as a moral tale explaining the inclusive attitude of the Jewish laws which forbid marrying outsiders (even BEFORE they WERE insiders). It's likely the "genesis" account of such bigoted thinking and discrimination against others.
I could never understand why Dinah would go over to another tribe to get raped. There were laws about being raped within the Jweish system of things, right? So does that not mean that since there were laws about rape that it must have been more than a infrequent experience.
Again, that's an anachronistic question, since the account happened in a time/place/setting BEFORE the Mosaic Covenant was formed, which was when the exiles from Egypt agreed to be bound by Jehovah's laws that were handed down to Moses on Mt Sinai, in a ceremony recorded in Exodus 24:8:
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."
Aside to deliver the message against intermarriage, I suspect the story of Dinah served as justification for the need for these LATER rules that were adopted on dowry/marriage amongst Jewish families, which were read to the people right before they were bound to them, in Exodus 22:
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
(Cool, huh? The Bible is endorsing pre-marital SEX, as long as he marries her and pays a dowry to her father! And if Dad refuses, the guy has to pay a dowry for the going rate for virgins. And you were told it was a sin?)
VM44 said-
Her own brothers did not obey God's laws when they committed mass murder, and they were not repentant or sorry that they did so!
But again, remember the rules against bloodshed in the 10 commandments wasn't yet given on Mt Sinai, and even then, the rule seemingly didn't apply to Non-Jews (although the law against bloodshed WAS handed down to Moses after the Flood in Genesis 9:5-6, but there's no account of God holding the sons of Jacob accountable for their treachery in the Dinah account; remaining mute implies God approved, as did the later promotion of Levi to head priest!).
So although Jacob was mad at the deceptive and murderous actions of his sons Simeon and Levy for dealing in bad faith with the inhabitants of the land, and he mentioned being afraid of retaliation by the Caananites, the message seems to be clear to not mess with the future Chosen People, since "might makes right"! Morals have NOTHING to do with it! The story seems to serve as an example of refusing to intermarry with those outside the Jewish faith, as well.
Yet somehow the Bible is supposed to contain Universal and Time-Honored examples of God-given morality that's applicable to people today? Sure, uh-huh....
PS here's an interesting article I ran across...
http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/contemporary/articles/rape_of_dinah_genesis_34.htm
Adam